From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Aic7xxx v6.2.22 and Aic79xx v1.3.0Alpha2 Released Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 11:42:27 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20021214104227.GH11892@suse.de> References: <200212101602.gBAG2Hi02930@localhost.localdomain> <20021211135855.A19325@infradead.org> <1266570000.1039619906@aslan.scsiguy.com> <20021211153935.A23704@infradead.org> <1313340000.1039622906@aslan.scsiguy.com> <20021211162318.A24958@infradead.org> <20021212071636.GA4318@suse.de> <261670000.1039713623@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <20021212173818.GA6481@suse.de> <20021213210643.B15074@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021213210643.B15074@infradead.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 13 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 06:38:18PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > 1) You have to set a flag when you've already told the system you > > > dma capabilities. > > > > All drivers blindly copy the setting of the dma mask, typically means > > nothing. > > Maybe it's a bit to dangerous for 2.4, but for 2.5 Justin's suggestion > looks very nice, IMHO. The whole discussion was about the 2.4 patch. For 2.5 I'm not adverse to doing it this way. -- Jens Axboe